The Mann at TEDx PSU (Penn State) video is now available. There’s no political content warning unfortunately, as Mann spends more time standing if front of giant faces of politicians and political pundits he hates than graphs and data. This TEDx is light on science, heavy on political trash talk. He even manages to work a photo of a child with a polar bear in at the end. The best part of the video is that it is only 16 minutes long. Video below. From the YouTube description:
TEDxPSU – Michael Mann – A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future
Michael Mann is a professor in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, a climatologist, and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. Michael is best known for his extensive background and research in the field of paleoclimatology. This work led to Michael’s graph of temperature trends over the last thousand years, popularly coined as the “hockey stick graph” because of its resemblance to the sporting equipment. The graph has received acclaim and criticism since its publishing. He has received many awards and honors including, but not limited to, the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by NOAA in 2002 and also was named one of the 50 Leading Visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American. Michael is also one of the founders of RealClimate.org, a highly acclaimed climate science website that was chosen in 2005 as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American and as one of the top 15 “green” websites by Time Magazine in 2008. Michael’s educational background includes an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Note: you can click on the YouTube Logo in the lower right to like/dislike the video.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
(sarc on)Oh sure, I produce a YouTube video…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/the-ipcc-says-the-video-part-1/
…and now Michael Mann has to make one too. (sarc off)
So not, like, “Best Science Blog” or anything, eh? And not voted by real people or anything, eh?
I have not seen the video, as I am not sure I could keep my temper while doing so, I’m afraid.
That was almost, Almost as good as Nixon’s 18 minutes of Silence.
Mann tells us about all the evil politicans he hates but there’s remarkably little serious content for 16 min.
It is most “interesting” that he quotes Sarah Palin (regarding her own emails released in Alaska) to endorse the idea that FOI released emails must not be read “out of context” — because any thinking person should then notice that….
(1) The Team would not even cooperate with legally mandated FOI releases, regardless of putting them in ‘context’ or not, and,
(2) putting your whines about out-of-context emails on a par with Palin’s should hardly be the way to show the great scientific and intellectual superiority of The Team.
That was unintentionally quite revealing….
Just painted my basement… I need to go watch it dry now…
to supplement my comment on the IRONY of Mann’s reliance upon the Palin quote, we only got to see The Team’s “FOI” release because the secretive “FOIA” provided them in the face of radical intransigence from The Team…. i.e., at least Palin’s emails were released according to law, whereas The Team did everyone they could to obstruct and defy FOI law.
Hansen’s 1988 predictions are apparently right on.
Only a very confident fibber would dare show that fake chart and think they could get away with it.
And exactly how did anyone actually watch the entire video? Personally I did not watch any of it. In keeping with warmista critiques I guess that means I should critique it [sarc off]
I like how he cuts off the temp.data in 2005 before it splits from Hansen’s “middle emissions” model and then declares it “spot on.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if he altered the CO2 inputs too since, IIRC, I think that’s what they do at skeptical science to “prove” how great Hansen’s models are.
An attempt at ‘brand control’; they are off to a good start (sarc) showcasing ‘The Mann’ …
.
Still ‘Hiding the Decline’, still claiming 12 spaghetti plots done by a handful of people, using the same data are ‘independent’.
– when you know what they’re doing, it’s really interesting to watch them tying to pull it off time & again!
Present ratings for this video (26 total) :
4 . . . Likes
22 . . Dis-likes.
It should be noted, most ‘producer’ accounts at YouTube could look at the metrics for their videos and see when in their videos like/dislikes etc were clicked, so, word to the wise, WATCH a bit of the video first before simply rendering a like/dislike verdict …
Any one needs help, check out the usage of Maalox (heartburn remedy).
.
At 2:34 when discussing Hansen’s prediction he stops the temperature data line at 2005. If he had continued the line to the present he it would have been just above the pink link or reduced emission scenario, which has absolutely not occurred. Instead since 1990, human CO2 emission has increased by 30% while global temperatures by all accounts have basically flat lined. These so-called scientists are always playing slight of hand tricks and here you can plainly see one at 2:34.
oops, above I meant to say that since 2000 CO2 emissions have increased by 30% while temperatures have flat lined.
http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2011/10/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions.html
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000
It is no warmer this year than it was 14 yrs ago in 1997
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997
Before anyone gives one bit of credibility to Mann’s video, I think you should read his climate science colleagues emails regarding his work.
http://junkscience.com/2011/12/06/team-knew-hockey-stick-reconstruction-was-wrong/
I must go floss.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7322820/penn-state-nittany-lions-chief-rodney-erickson-tries-soothe-faculty-fears-inquiry
Irony. I never thought an ESPN story would be relevant on this blog, but I must ask the obvious. Why are faculty, specifically, worried about a whitewash in an investigation by Penn State higher ups? It seems such an odd thing to just blurt out. What are they afreud of?
Also, if the case is so straight forward, why is it the Lasic et al was the first paper I’ve seen that tries to tie it all together? Albeit, badly.
Hey now. The introductions was good.
At the 5 min 30 sec point, he has a slide of both the Hoggan/Littlemore and Oreskes/Conway anti-skeptic books. As I pointed out in my piece last year http://climatechangedispatch.com/editorials/7568-circuitous-attempts-to-smear-agw-skeptic-scientists , Hoggan and Oreskes rely on a single source for their accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupt. That would be anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who has never had the courage to show his central bit of “smoking gun” evidence in its full context, or told how he ‘obtained’ it. Try looking into all the aspects of his accusation, and instead of seeing what he claims is a fossil fuel industry / skeptic scientists conspiracy to confuse the public, what you see instead ends up looking like highly questionable efforts by a few enviro-activists to marginalize AGW critics by any means possible.
Here, and in the Wall Street Journal, Mann apparently remains in a time warp circa 2003 when big oil backed, tobacco-like campaign (let alone the lead-in-petrol scare!) would have been believable, arguable, tenable. In this time warp has gathered a hockey league of data confirming that ‘recent warming is anomalous as far back as we can extend these sorts of estimates.’ (hmmm…what sorts of estimates? Tree rings? or Ice cores?). What we now know from the Climategate II emails is that the ego-armour around his beloved hockey stick was as impervious to peer criticism as was later to the criticism of McIntyre.
It is at times like these where ordinary folk will retreat cautious, doubtful and a little embarrassed, while the likes of Mann and Santer will stride to the fore heroic.
WSJ letter here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068211662483248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket#articleTabs%3Darticle
Scientization of politics? well at least we can see who he thinks should be in the driver’s seat….pure charachter assassination, innuendo and bravura. I am not glad I wasted the 16 minutes listening to him….won’t do that again.
RE: Ken Methven: (December 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm)
“Scientization of politics?”
Of course, the real issue appears to be the mobilization of science for political purposes. A statement that 97% of scientists agree with ‘Global Warming’ sounds a lot like the result of a Soviet style election.
Have something so much more important to do. Need to watch ice crystals form on my car window. Should take all night and into the early morning hours. Sooooo…no can do re: video
All he did was attack his so called attackers ….if he has nothing to hide why not give up his data and methods …. No brainer really.